Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am torn. I cannot decide which argument has less merit. There was the gentleman from Florida who said, do not take it up on this bill; it is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. It is in the dungeon of the Committee on the Judiciary. I envy the gentleman's ability to say that without smiling. This bill is introduced, and it is sent to the Committee on the Judiciary. And that committee, of which he is a member, consistently refuses to take any action on it. Of course, it would be better if the Committee on the Judiciary did its duty and had a markup and let us vote on the bill.

The Committee on the Judiciary tyrannically refuses to deal with the bill. That is bad enough. But it literally adds insult to the democratic process to injury of the democratic process to refuse to act on the bill, and then complain when people find another way around. This is like locking somebody up, and she escapes through your backyard, and you charge her with trespassing. We have found a way out of your prison, and that bothers you. How can anyone seriously argue that, having refused to let the bill be subjected to the normal processes, we are the ones who are at fault because we have found another way to bring it up?

And then we have the gentleman from North Carolina who said this is a violation of free speech. I guess it is easy when you do not read the bill. This bill criminalizes actions that consist of violence against individuals. It allows the Attorney General to enter under certain limited circumstances, if it is a Federal crime of violence under the Federal U.S. Code. It allows certain other things if there is an act of bodily injury or an attempt to cause bodily injury. Nothing in here criminalizes speech. In fact, when people start talking about Sweden, it is a pretty good indication that they do not have anything to talk about with regard to the law that we are voting on in America. By the way, America, unlike Sweden, has a first amendment, and the Supreme Court would have banned that if anybody tried to.

Finally, to refute that argument, which is without any merit whatsoever; I mean, sometimes we get close questions here. That one has no merit. There is nothing remotely in this bill that threatens anybody's speech. But here is the proof of it, and it also is a sign of the gross inconsistency of those on the other side. We are not starting down any path today, except the path of their illogic. What we are doing is adding a category to existing Federal categories. There are already on the books laws that create hate crimes. It is not the case that every crime is treated equally.

By the way, there was one category of people, and violence against them is much more seriously treated than violence against anybody else. If you are so offended by that, where is your motion to amend the law and take away the statute that says it is a super Federal crime to assault one of us. If a Member of Congress and a private citizen are walking down the street and they are both assaulted, it is a much more serious crime against the Member of Congress. Where is your consistency? If you mean what you say, why have you not gone after that, or is it okay if you are protected, Madam Speaker?

And then we have race on the books, and we have religion. Has anybody ever found a case where they say, well, once you do this, someone's free speech will be impugned? Are you telling me there are no racists in America? Are you telling me that no one makes racially offensive remarks? People do. And none of them, none of them have ever been prosecuted for hate speech.

So, in fact, you deny the reality, Madam Speaker, when people say this, that there are already on the books certain categories that are treated as hate crimes. None of them have led to there being any impugning of people's free speech.

Then the question is, why do we want to do this? In the first place, no one is saying that if you were violently assaulted, you will not be protected by the law. Why do we add an additional element if it is a hate crime? And here is the reason: When people are going out and singling out people because of their race or their color; and, by the way, if people who are white are being assaulted by people of another race because of their race, that is a hate crime, and it ought to be treated as such. I do not share the view that that is a bad thing. It is wrong for thugs to tyrannize people because of that, and it is worse than another crime for this reason.

If some individual is walking down the street and is randomly assaulted, he or she is traumatized. But if another individual is singled out because of her race or religion or sexual orientation or gender, then it is not simply the individual who has been assaulted but others who share that characteristic who are put in fear.

We do have a particular problem. The gentleman said, well, you are saying gender instead of sex. Yes, there are people who are transgendered in our society. They are sadly often victimized. They are often victims of violence. Yes, I think it is a good idea to come to their aid. And if the gentleman thinks it is a mistake to go to the aid of people who are transgendered who are more often than others victimized and who are put in fear for that, then we do disagree, and I welcome the chance to vote on it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Does he then seek to undo the Federal law that singles out race and religion currently for a protection of this sort? If he thinks it is wrong to do division, does he oppose the existence of those laws and do we expect to see a law repealing these?

Well, why not race and religion?

Mr. Speaker, I am here to protest what has become a significant degradation of the democratic process in this House. We have a situation in which the House leadership has turned the legislative process into a propaganda arm. With increasing and depressing frequency, we are given resolutions to vote on in a form which does not allow for amendments, and these resolutions contain a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.

What we have is a pattern of taking sentiments to which all Members of the House or nearly all Members subscribe, sentiments which are quite proper, and then adding into these sentiments are far more controversial sentiments, sentiments that many of us disagree with.

It is an abuse of the process of democracy to bring forward on this floor resolutions which combine those things with which Members agree with things which are controversial in a form which does not allow Members to even begin to separate them.

There are, for good reasons, parliamentary rules and ways through which Members can express partial agreement. We can amend. We can divide the question. But when bills are brought here under suspension of the rules, as they often are, the legislative process is turned into a political propaganda machine. What happens is Members feel coerced into voting in very large numbers for particular sentiments which could not in many cases get a majority on their own and certainly could not get majorities of the size that they get.

And then having gotten that, people will say, see, everybody agrees with that. Most recently this happened on September 9 when we voted on the resolution brought out of the Committee on International Relations dealing with the terrible events of September 11, 2001; and I will insert this in the Record, appropriately marked. It has resolve clauses that we all agree with, but it also has a series of ``whereas'' clauses which include a number of things which are extremely controversial, in my view, untrue, and unworthy of being put through in this coercive fashion.

Paragraphs 4 and 5, which I have noted on my copy of the resolution, treat the war in Iraq as part of the global war on terrorism. It has been made increasingly clear, most recently by our colleague who is now waiting confirmation as head of the CIA, that statements by administration officials tying Iraq to the September 11 situation were simply not true. Yet this resolution acts as if they were. This resolution implicitly reaffirms the increasingly discredited notion, believed, I think, by almost nobody except possibly the Vice President because he talks about it all the time, that said that there was a direct link between September 11 and Iraq.

And it is wrong to coerce Members to vote for statements that falsely assert this claim because otherwise they will be accused of not caring about the events of September 11.

Then on paragraphs 15 through 21, we have inappropriate celebratory language. If we read these paragraphs, we have solved the problems of immigration and terrorism. We are examining all the cargo. We have taken care of everything. We have ``whereas'' clauses here that look like part of the President's reelection campaign. He is entitled to a reelection campaign. He is not entitled to take things that belong in a reelection campaign statement and bundle them into an otherwise noncontroversial resolution to coerce people into voting for him.

This congratulates us, for example, that we have extended our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry. It talks about the great success of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. Frankly, if one read this resolution and believed it, they would not need the 9/11 Commission report. These paragraphs basically celebrate the accomplishments of what the 9/11 Commission points out need to be done.

We have congratulations to the Immigration Service, congratulations to the FBI, congratulations to the Coast Guard. There are very hard- working decent people trying hard to accomplish these things, but we have not done them yet. These things, if they had been brought forward on their own as statements, would have been rejected, I believe.

It is absolutely wrong to take these inaccurately self-congratulatory statements about the administration's performance and our own performance here in Congress and get votes for them because otherwise people would be accused of not wanting to express our horror of September 11 and our thanks to those who worked so hard against it.

So, Mr. Speaker, because I did not think that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, I do not think we deserve to claim ``mission accomplished'' with regard to the fight against terrorism, I voted against this resolution. And I hope we will stop this practice of giving a bait-and-switch approach to legislation.

H. Res. 757, in the House of Representatives, U.S., September 9, 2004.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were

attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four

civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of

the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the

Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented

from also being used as a weapon against America by brave

passengers who placed their country above their own lives;

Whereas three years later the country continues to, and

shall forever, mourn the tragic loss of life at the hands of

terrorist attackers;

Whereas by targeting symbols of American strength and

success, these attacks clearly were intended to assail the

principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the

American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the

national resolve;

4

Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United

States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect

America and her friends and allies;

5

Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an

international military coalition in the destruction of two

terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using

diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and

the international community to lead a third terrorist regime

in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas the United States is reorganizing itself in order

to more effectively wage the

Global War on Terrorism by transforming the Department of

Defense, sharpening the Federal Bureau of Investigation's

counterterrorism focus, strengthening the authority of the

Director of Central Intelligence to coordinate national

intelligence activities, and creating a Department of

Homeland Security;

Whereas of the senior al-Qaida leaders, operational

managers, and key facilitators that the United States

Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds of such

individuals have been taken into custody or killed;

Whereas just as significant, with the help of its allies,

the United States has disrupted individuals and organizations

that facilitate terrorism--movers of money, people, messages,

and supplies--who have acted as the glue binding the global

al-Qaida network together;

Whereas Pakistan has taken into custody more than 500

members of al-Qaida and the Taliban regime, including Khalid

Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, conspirators in the

September 11, 2001, attacks, and Kahallad Ba'Attash, an

individual involved in the planning of the attack on the USS

COLE in 2000;

Whereas Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism

efforts, arresting two individuals with links to al-Qaida who

admitted responsibility for the October 2002 murder in Amman,

Jordan, of Lawrence Foley, a United States Agency for

International Development Foreign Service Officer;

Whereas in June 2002, Morocco took into custody al-Qaida

operatives plotting to attack United States Navy ships and

ships of other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization in the Strait of Gibraltar;

Whereas the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia

have made significant advances against the regional terrorist

organization Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the

attack in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2003 that killed more

than 200 people;

Whereas Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand,

and other countries in Southeast Asia have taken into custody

leaders and operatives of local al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist

organizations and members of al-Qaida traveling through such

countries;

Whereas the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain,

and other countries have disrupted cells of the al-Qaida

terrorist organization and are vigorously pursuing other

leads relating to terrorist activity;

15

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the

United States Government initiated innovative programs, such

as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program

and the Container Security Initiative, to extend our borders

overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed

on ships destined for United States ports of entry;

16

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security implemented the

US-VISIT border security screening system in December 2003 at

all air and sea ports of entry, requiring that nonimmigrant

visa holders entering the United States be fingerprinted and

screened through various criminal and terrorist databases

before entry into the United States, and this system will be

expanded to land ports of entry in accordance with

congressional deadlines;

17

Whereas since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has

conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air

patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over

14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States

illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime

Security Zones;

18

Whereas following attacks of September 11, 2001, the

Terrorist Threat Integration Center was established, which

now fuses, for the first time in United States history,

terrorist-related information, foreign and domestic,

available to the United States Government for systematic

analysis and dissemination to prevent or disrupt terrorist

attacks on the United States;

19

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the

Terrorist Screening Center, a multi-agency partnership, was

established to integrate the dozens of separate terrorist

databases that existed before September 11th into a single

terrorist watch list for use by Federal, State, and local law

enforcement, intelligence, and border security personnel.

20

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the

United States Government has ensured the hardening of cockpit

doors on airplanes and greatly expanded the use of armed

Federal air marshals to prevent and deter future hijackings

that could turn commercial planes into weapons of mass

destruction;

21

Whereas having recognized the need to prevent terrorist

organizations from using their resources, the Federal Bureau

of Investigation has worked closely with the Department of

the Treasury to target 62 terrorist organizations and freeze

$125,000,000 in assets of such organizations worldwide used

to fund terrorist activities;

Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition

forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted

criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including

Saddam Hussein himself;

Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a

base of operations to coordinate the movement of people,

money, and supplies; and

Whereas thousands of families have lost loved ones in the

defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved: That the House of Representatives--

(1) extends again its deepest sympathies to the thousands

of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist

attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones;

(2) honors the heroic actions and the sacrifices of United

States military and civilian personnel and their families who

have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in

defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism;

(3) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law

enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers,

and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing,

bravely risked their own lives and long-term health;

(4) expresses thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders

and citizens of all nations who have assisted and continue to

stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism

in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist

attacks;

(5) discourages, in the strongest possible terms, any

effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on

any people or any faith;

(6) reaffirms its commitment to the Global War on Terrorism

and to providing the United States Armed Forces with the

resources and support to wage it effectively and safely;

(7) vows that it will continue to take whatever actions

necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and

their activities; and

(8) reaffirms that the American people will never forget

the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow

to terrorist demands.

Mr. Speaker, for many years I've had the great privilege of sharing with my colleagues and the nation the description of those who are being honored by ROFEH International and the New England Chassidic Center. This year, the dinner for these two valuable institutions will be held on November 14, and the awardees are Dr. Edwin H. Kolodny, and Mr. Daniel M. Wyner.

Dr. Kolodny will receive the ``ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award,'' for his very charitable service, and the great distinction he has achieved in the fields of birth defects, genetic diseases of the nervous system, and mental retardation and developmental disabilities.

The ``Man of the Year,'' Daniel Wyner, has performed outstanding service to the New England Chassidic Center and to the Greater Boston Jewish Community as a whole.

These two organizations, under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, make extremely important contributions to the religious, cultural and social life of Greater Boston, and indeed have a relevant impact in the medical field. I am pleased to join in honoring Mr. Wyner and Dr. Kolodny, and I ask unanimous consent to include here biographies of both men as an example of the sort of valuable community service that we should be encouraging through appropriate recognition.

Dr. Edwin H. Kolodny is a renowned neurologist and geneticist. He is the Bernard A. and Charlotte Marden Professor of Neurology and Chairman of the Department of Neurology at the New York University School of Medicine and Director of its Division of Neurogenetics. He is a specialist in inherited metabolic and degenerative diseases of the nervous system and has made many contributions to the field of Jewish genetic diseases. He serves on many scientific advisory boards and has authored numerous articles in leading medical journals.

A native of Brookline, Massachusetts and graduate of the Boston Latin School, he received his A.B. from Harvard College (cum laude in Economics) and his M.D. from the NYU School of Medicine (with honors). Dr. Kolodny trained in Internal Medicine for 2 years at Bellevue Hospital in New York and completed his Neurology residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. After 3 additional years of training in Neurochemistry at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, he returned to Boston and the Harvard Medical School where he rose to Professor of Neurology and Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center for Mental Retardation.

Dr. Kolodny is the recipient of numerous awards and honors for his work as a clinician, researcher and teacher. These include the Alpha Omega Alpha Award of the NYU School of Medicine, the Above and Beyond Award of the National Tay-Sachs and Allied Diseases Association, and listing in ``Best Doctors in the U.S.'' He has also served as a Visiting Professor at medical schools in Israel and elsewhere overseas.

Dr. Edwin Kolodny and his wife, Dr. Roselyn Kolodny, a pediatrician, have four children, Nancy Lieberman, Dr. Leonard Kolodny, Robin Leshem, and Noah Kolodny, two son-in-laws, Ralph and Erez, and two daughter-in- laws, Debby and Michelle, of whom they are equally proud, and fabulous grandchildren Naomi, Tamar, Benjamin, Daniel, and Sarah.

Dan Wyner is President of Shawmut Corporation, a fourth generation family business that manufactures innovative textile composites for the Automotive, Medical, Military and Industrial markets, with three plants in Massachusetts and Michigan. Dan has worked for Shawmut for over 23 years, working alongside his grandfather, father and most recently, one of his brothers.

In addition to his role at Shawmut, Dan is one of the founders of Omniflex LLC; a Western Massachusetts based technical film supplier, and currently serves as a director of Omniflex, which is a Shawmut Joint Venture. He is also one of the founders of PolyWorks LLC; a Rhode Island based low-pressure injection molding company and serves on its board of directors.

In addition to his business interest, Dan has worked to support a number of charitable organizations.

Over the past several years, Dan and his wife Lorna have been supporters of ROFEH International, helping in the development and renovation of ROFEH's residential facility for the benefit of families of Bone Marrow Transplant patients.

Dan presently serves on the board of trustees of the Rhode Island chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society as treasurer of that organization, and he and his wife Lorna are significant supporters of the Society, supporting both direct research projects, annual fundraising events, and recruiting for and participating in this year's Team in Training Cyclefest 100-mile bike ride.

Dan is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Alperin Schechter Day School in Providence, RI where their daughter Madelyn is a fourth grade student. Dan is also a member of the Board of Overseers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Dan and his wife support a number of other charitable causes, including the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital and the American Jewish Historical Society.

Dan is a graduate of Dartmouth College where he majored in Philosophy. He, together with his wife and daughter, live on a small horse farm in Rhode Island. In his spare time Dan plays tennis, pilots ultra-light aircraft and does some wheel-thrown pottery.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been objected to.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we at the point of the bill dealing with section 216?

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to point out there is a difference between ending in 1 hour and 1 hour of debate; namely, whether or not the clock stops.

I would agree if we are talking about 1 full hour of debate, but if we are talking about 1 hour on the clock I would object.

Mr. Chairman, equally divided, I assume?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the last I looked, no bank was sitting in the White House. We are talking about a policy issued under the authority of the President of the United States and supported by the Justice Department. So this very transitory populism on the part of some of my Republican colleagues, denouncing the bank, may sound right; but this is not any bank's policy we are talking about.

These are regulations issued by George Bush's Department of Treasury, supported by George Bush; and the George Bush administration supports this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to

say that I agree we have a forgery problem, but it is greater than Members may think. It is not of the matricula consular. Apparently someone has forged a letter from the United States Department of Justice. Because I have a letter today, I know my chairman has it, signed by a man who purports to be James B. Comey, the Deputy Attorney General, and it is on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice and it supports this amendment. And it says, ``The Department of Justice fully supports the administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures. Therefore, the Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment that preserves these regulations.''

So it is not just the matricula consular that is being forged. Apparently there is somebody forging letters from the Department of Justice. So maybe we should suspend the proceedings and send out the Sergeant of Arms. Contempt of Congress.

Now, I think, frankly, that forgery has been somewhat exaggerated in this debate, but the biggest exaggeration is this: So, yes, a couple of years ago people said various things, but there has been an evolution and we now have the policy of President Bush, supported by the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury, and that is what is being assailed here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make one point.

The notion that people will stop coming here illegally if they do not have a matricula consular is totally at variance with logic and experience. People who want to stop illegal immigration have a very good point, but the notion that people will come to the border and say, Oh, my God, I forgot my matricula consular, I am staying home, has no basis in reality.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the FBI and Justice want us to pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make what I think is a central point. Whether or not the card exists, whether or not it is honored by banks will have zero effect on immigration. No one gets to the border deciding to come here without legal authorization and says, Whoops, I can't cross that river without my matricula consular.

Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is a wholly irrelevant one to this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

I would just stress no one who understands what drives immigration, legal or illegal, thinks that illegal immigration will decrease by one person if they do not have the matricula consular. I have never heard anyone argue that it is the ability to have the matricula consular that brings people here illegally. So the question is, as the chairman has phrased it, whatever we can do or not do to stop illegal immigration, this has nothing to do with it. There will be people here. This is part of an effort to try to identify some of the people who are here. It is a separate question. And, again, I would ask does anyone really think that if we get rid of the matricula consular that this would decrease illegal immigration by as much as one person? I see no argument for that. And then once we accept that fact, the chairman's argument is correct, that it is a way of dealing with facts that are here, while we try to diminish them to other means, that do have the support of law enforcement because better information is helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 642 as legislation in an appropriations bill.

No, Mr. Chairman. I think it is pretty clear.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 643 is legislation in an appropriations bill.

I make the same argument as I made on the previous point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 644 is legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore should be stricken.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Hispanic Recognitions Awards Committee Incorporated in the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts will have its annual ceremony, giving awards to a number of individuals and organizations. The recipients of these awards, to be presented at 5 p.m. at New Bedford High School on September 16, have distinguished themselves by their dedication and energy on behalf of the Hispanic community in our area, and on behalf of the community as a whole. I congratulate Emilio E. Cruz for the work he has done in making this possible, and I wish to join Mr. Cruz and others in recognizing the important community service performed by these recipients.

The list of awards and those receiving them is as follows: Community Organization Award 2004--Catholic Social Services; Cultural Achievement Award 2004--Johnny Arellano; Youth Award 2004--Chayrel Adams; Health Awards 2004--Marta Gonzalez; Education Award 2004--Sara Rodriguez; Public Safety Award 2004--Jose A. Perez; Latino Organization Award 2004--Association Maya Kiche USA, Inc.; Community Service/Leadership Award 2004--Reverend Abraham Torres; The Rising Star Award 2004-- Marilyn Vega.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of a district which contains a number of abandoned industrial sites, I have a particular interest in the Superfund program. Sadly, the priorities of the Congressional majority and the current administration do not include Superfund, and as a consequence, this important environmental cleanup program has been denied the resources needed to meet the promise we have made to many American communities.

In my own district there are three Superfund sites on which I have worked hard, and where we have made some progress, but where inadequate funding threatens to deny the people of the City of New Bedford and the Towns of Fairhaven and Norton the full environmental response to which they are entitled by federal law.

This is a problem of national scope, as evidenced by the fact that the United States Conference of Mayors, one of the leading voices for sensible public policies in our country, recently passed a resolution at its 72nd Annual Meeting in Boston calling for ``increasing appropriation levels for Superfund.'' The resolution notes the slowdown in remediation that is taking place because of the preference for tax cuts for the wealthy over important public needs, and urges us to increase the Superfund appropriation by $300 million a year for the next five years.

This is a very well informed and important statement from a group of thoughtful public officials who share with us the responsibility for

public policy in this country, and I ask that the Conference of Mayors' very cogent resolution be printed here.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just about gays and lesbians. I have been here 24 years. We never do anything only once. When you have developed a particular procedure to use in defense of your views, that gets used again and again. Today, I was going to say you set a precedent if you pass this bill, but you do not set a precedent. You go back in history to the Articles of Confederation.

Passage of this bill will mean that the United States Constitution, in this particular area, will have different meanings in different States because States will then be the ultimate decider of the Constitution, and anyone who thinks that if we do it in this case that is the only time we will ever do it does not follow things closely.

I am the ranking member on the minority side in the Committee on Financial Services. There is not an area in our jurisdiction with respect to the business community of America where the financial community does not come to us and say we need one uniform law.

Do you not understand, Mr. Speaker, that if you set this precedent, it will apply in other areas? Indeed, it will become boilerplate. If you are passing legislation dealing with the second amendment and gun rights; and environmental land takings under the fifth amendment; the commerce clause, financial regulation, it will be a matter of course to add this language that says, and by the way, we believe so strongly in what we have done, it will be none of the business of the courts.

There will be different views in different States. Forget the Uniform Commercial Code. We will have the ``multiple commercial code,'' the multiple choice commercial code. We will have the ``Multiple Choice Constitution.''

I guess I am regretful, maybe I can apologize, that the sight of two lesbians falling in love and wanting to formalize that has so traumatized the majority that they are prepared to make the biggest hole in the United States Constitution that we have seen since we became one Nation. You are saying there will be no more uniformity in the Constitution, and you say it is only here.

By the way, I know a few scholars who think you will lose on full faith and credit. You make a terrible mistake to set a precedent that will be followed time and again. It will become truth that you really care about an issue that you say that the United States Constitution will no longer be a uniform document, but will be subject to dozens of separate State interpretations.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my friend from Illinois. This does not take the matter out of the courts; it takes the matter of constitutionality away from the United States Supreme Court and confers it on the 50 State supreme courts.

What this bill says is, no court created by act of Congress and the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to, among other things, the validity under the Constitution of Section 13, et cetera.

The State courts have, as has been acknowledged, also the right to interpret the Federal Constitution. Frankly, from the standpoint of there being more same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I think there would be more if this bill became law. I do not want the bill to become law because of its terrible precedential consequences. But, frankly, the likelihood that this U.S. Supreme Court will find that full faith and credit compels the nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages is quite slight. It is likelier that there are four, five or six State courts that will find that.

So what you are saying is not that the people will decide it as opposed to the courts, the courts presumably made up of aliens that you have appointed in many cases, but the fact is that it will be decided by State supreme courts.

Now, this is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin says there is precedent. He is wrong. All of the things he cited had to do with administrative matters, with deportees who are by definition noncitizens and who do not have the same rights. There is no case in American history of this language: you cannot decide any question pertaining to the validity under the Constitution. This is the first time we have said, not that it will not be litigated, but it will not be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What you are doing here, you are not repealing anything except the Constitution by going back to the Articles of Confederation.

Here is the problem, and it is not just about same-sex marriage. As I have

said, I think there will probably be more State courts that will find full faith and credit than national. But we all know that we never in this body do anything only once. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) was right when he said, what about other issues. Once you establish this as the way you show your fealty to a principle, it will be demanded with regard to everything else. This will become boilerplate. So on issue after issue we will pass legislation, and we will say, but it cannot be questioned by the Supreme Court.

Now, I can tell you, on the Committee on Financial Services on which I serve, the business community of the United States overwhelmingly comes to us and says we need uniformity, we need uniformity. What you are enacting here today does not say the courts do not have the final say; it says that instead of there being one United States Supreme Court binding interpretation on constitutional questions that are controversial, there will be different State court interpretations, and the impact will be much less on same-sex marriage than on economics, on land-takings, on gun control and a whole range of other issues.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most damaging myths that people in Washington seek to perpetuate is that opposition to recent trade pacts is rooted in isolationism and unreasonable protectionism. In fact, many of those who best understand the value of international economic cooperation, done properly, reject the Administration's approach. Among the most thoughtful advocates of an alternative approach to globalization is Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics in 2001, who also served as Chief Economist at the World Bank and in important economic positions in the Clinton Administration. In the New York Times for July 10, Professor Stiglitz set forward part of the argument against the Bush Administration trade policies, and explained exactly why those people most dedicated to alleviating worldwide poverty and social distress seek an alternative approach. I ask that Mr. Stiglitz's very thoughtful column be printed here.

[From the New York Times, July 10, 2004]

New Trade Pacts Betray the Poorest Partners

(By Joseph E. Stiglitz)

The United States and Morocco last month signed a new

bilateral trade treaty. The Bush administration has been

bragging that it exemplifies the way its economic policies

can build new ties and new friendships around the world. This

is especially important in the Middle East, where, in other

respects, America's foreign policy seems to have left

something to be desired. The cooperation with moderate Arab

governments is meant to demonstrate our broadmindedness, our

willingness to offer a carrot (rather than the proverbial

stick) to those who behave reasonably.

But regrettably, in negotiating the trade agreements with

Morocco, Chile and other countries, the Bush administration

has used the same approach that earned us the enmity of so

much of the rest of the world. The bilateral agreements

reveal an economic policy dictated more by special interests

than by a concern for the well-being of our poorer trading

partners. In Morocco, prospects of the trade agreement were

greeted by protests--an unusual occurrence in a country that

is only slowly moving to democracy. The new agreement, many

Moroccans fear, will make generic drugs needed in the fight

against AIDS even less accessible in their country than they

are in the United States. According to Morocco's Association

de Lutte contre le SIDA, an AIDS agency, the agreement

could increase the effective duration of patent protection

from the normal length of 20 years to 30 years.

Morocco is not the only country that is worrying about

access to life-saving drugs. In all its bilateral agreements,

the United States is using its economic muscle to help big

drug companies protect their products from generic

competitors. For a country like Thailand, which is facing a

real AIDS threat, these are issues of more than academic

concern.

President Bush's policy, in this area seems puzzling and

hypocritical. While he talks about a global campaign against

AIDS, and has offered substantial sums to back it up, what he

is giving with one hand is being

taken away with the other. Most Americans, I believe, would

support greater access to life-saving generic drugs. The loss

to the drug companies would be small, and must surely be

dwarfed by the huge tax breaks they get.

Nor are drugs the only arena in which the United States has

used its economic power to advance some special American

interest. The agreement with Chile limited its ability to

restrict the inflow of speculative, hot money--money that can

come in and out of a country on a moment's notice. Chile had

recognized the potential destabilizing effects of these

capital movements, and had imposed moderate taxes on these

flows. Such restrictions had helped Chile grow a remarkable 7

percent a year in the early 1990's. That is because, unlike

many of its neighbors in Latin America, Chile did not have to

face the economic havoc caused by capital suddenly flowing in

and then just as quickly flowing out. Today, even the

International Monetary Fund recognizes that capital-market

liberalization often leads to more instability instead of

faster growth.

In telecommunications, too, in Morocco and elsewhere, we

have put forward demands (for example, concerning the use of

transmitting facilities and the wholesaling of transmission

capacities) that we would oppose strenuously if someone were

to impose them on us. In the view of the developing world,

the bargaining has been extraordinarily one-sided--with all

the power on America's side.

The United States and its trade representative, Robert

Zoellick, are right that trade policy can be an important

instrument for building good will. But when conducted as it

has been by the Bush administration, it can be, and is, a way

to build ill will, especially among the young, who worry that

their elders are selling them short.

If the trade agreements bring the economic benefits

promised, if the lack of access to affordable drugs

(including generic drugs) proves less troublesome than the

naysayers worry, then all may be forgiven. But there is a

good chance that this will not be the case: in Mexico, for

example, real wages actually declined in the decade after the

North American Free Trade Agreement. And looking ahead, the

demands for capital-market liberalization have a good chance

of exposing Chile's economy to disruption, while the AIDS

epidemic and the need for cheap drugs to fight it are not

about to go away.

The good news is that the damage has been limited so far

because we have been able to pressure only a few small

countries to sign bilateral trade agreements. The bad news is

that the enmity that we are earning through these pacts will

only grow.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership the ranking member of our subcommittee is showing here. I am somewhat torn on this bill because I do agree, it is certainly beyond question, that the granting of stock options in the high technology industry, especially for start-up companies, has been enormously beneficial, and I do not want to see it changed. I do not even want to take the strong risk of it being changed, so if I were in charge of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, I would defer this. But I am not, and I do not want to be.

We are in danger, I think, on this and on other issues of collapsing entirely the notion of a kind of respect for procedures. It is a mistake for this body always to legislate to get the specific outcome it wants on a particular issue without regard to the institutional frameworks. I think the institutional framework of a separate and independent and autonomous Financial Accounting Standards Board is a valuable asset. I do not want to impinge upon it.

Members of this body are well aware that we never do anything only once. Maybe you can eat one potato chip, but you cannot overrule a board once only. If we set the precedent today of dictating to the Financial Accounting Standards Board what the accounting standards ought to be, I believe we will live to regret it.

With regard to the options, here is the issue. I think they are a good thing in companies, particularly young start-ups. They ought to be able to give them. I guess if you are an old start-up, you ought to get out of the business. Young start-ups ought to be able to continue to give them.

Here is the argument, because nothing in what FASB says says you cannot do them. What we are talking about is this: If companies are mandated to change the way in which they do the accounting on this, no change in the reality, but they change the accounting, will this leave the investment community to abandon a whole class of investments? I do not think a large number of people are now misled because it is in the footnote. I would assume if you are going to invest, you read the footnotes. But neither do I think that people will abandon the whole class of investments because when the accounting changes and it goes in the footnote to an expense, some of these companies will have gone from having shown a profit in one form of accounting to showing a loss.

That is the argument. The argument is because nothing is being proposed. It would ban stock options from being done.

What we are being told by the high-tech community, and I understand their fears, they do not want to take this risk. They are arguing that the investment community is apparently pretty dense and as long as the options are put into a footnote and they show a profit, they will invest. But if we change the accounting, the reality has not changed one iota, they will walk away from the whole class of places.

Where is the gentleman from Texas, the former majority leader, Mr. Armey? Because he is the one who said, government is stupid and markets are smart. Would he please explain to them that markets are not stupid?

In this case, he may have been right, because this is the argument. The crux of the argument is that if you change the accounting and do not change the reality, you will collapse investor interest in this whole class of industry, and I think that is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Baker) concern for congressional prerogative and not excessive delegation. I just wish it extended to the war power and a few other trivial matters.

On this particular subject, the gentlewoman's amendment is quite sensible. We have had criticism of the FASB arguing that they are going to make a decision that has broader public policy implications on grounds that are too technical. The gentlewoman's amendment gets us out of that box. And I have some sympathy with that argument because I do not think the FASB ought to go ahead, but I do not want to set the precedent of overturning the regulators.

What her amendment does is to say, okay, it will not be up to the FASB, making a narrow technical accounting decision; it will be up to the Securities and Exchange Commission and specifically instructs them to take into account the public interest. In other words, it seems to me that this is what Members have been saying, that this decision obviously should not ignore accounting principles but that should be leavened by a concern for the public interest. So it is not simply a repeat of the whole bill. It does say it will not be up only to the FASB as current law would allow it, but it does say we will let the SEC make that decision.

As to the argument this would somehow let the SEC overrule Congress, we would be voting to say to the SEC, here, we think based on invested protection and the public interest, you should make that decision. It would not be setting any precedent of overruling us or giving away our authority at all.

I would love to have a consistent regard for congressional authority. I wish we could do it with regard to overtime rules and the war powers. This is not one of those problems.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to serve in this House as the

successor to one of its most distinguished former Members, the Reverend Robert F. Drinan, who represented the Fourth District of Massachusetts from 1970 to 1980. Father Drinan came to Congress after a very distinguished career as a legal scholar and administrator, having served with enormous distinction as Dean of the Law School at Boston College. For 10 years he played a leadership role in this body on a wide range of issues, significantly enriching the deliberations of the House with his vigorous intellect and strong commitment to the public interest.

Upon leaving Congress in 1981, he resumed his academic career and has for more than 20 years continued to make extraordinary moral and intellectual contributions to the law. To take just one example, no one in the world has done more to advance the cause of international human rights--defending basic human rights without regard to the ideology of those would deny them--than Father Drinan, both as a Member of Congress and subsequently.

In recognition of his extraordinary career--which still goes forward--the American Bar Association will present its highest honor to him on August 9 at the ABA Annual Meeting in Atlanta. As ABA President Dennis Archer said in announcing the decision to award the ABA medal to Father Drinan, ``By his standards of leadership, he contributes to the luster and dignity of our award.''

Mr. Speaker, the American Bar Association in explaining its decision to confer this award on a man who ``has demonstrated to lawyers what it means to be committed to public service and to countless law students what is embodied in the highest dedication to ethical, moral legal practice'' gives a summary description of his extraordinarily productive career. I ask that this announcement by the American Bar Association be printed here.

ABA Confers Highest Honor on Former Congressman, the Rev. Robert F.

Drinan, Georgetown Law Professor

Chicago, June 28, 2004.--The American Bar Association today

announced it will present the 2004 ABA Medal, the

association's highest honor, to the Rev. Robert F. Drinan,

S.J., a former congressman, law school dean, ethicist and

human rights activist.

ABA President Dennis W. Archer will present the medal at

11:30 a.m. Aug. 9 during the opening session of the

association's House of Delegates during the 2004 ABA Annual

Meeting in Atlanta.

``In an amazing career that has spanned more than half a

century, Father Drinan has never faltered in his

extraordinary humanitarian efforts and support for justice

under the law. He has demonstrated to lawyers what it means

to be committed to public service and to countless law

students what is embodied in the highest dedication to

ethical, moral legal practice. By his standards of

leadership, he contributes to the luster and dignity of our

award,'' said Archer in announcing the selection.

The ABA medal recognizes exceptionally distinguished

service to the cause of American jurisprudence.

In nominating Drinan, admirers described him as ``an

eloquent and effective advocate for the most downtrodden in

society,'' someone ``active in so many areas of the law and

human rights that there is not enough space to catalog

them,'' and such a ``towering figure in the academic,

professional, clerical and public service fields'' that he

``is the stuff of which legends are made.'' They noted the

ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities created

the Robert F. Drinan Distinguished Service Award in 2001,

recognizing his leadership in protecting and advancing human

rights, civil liberties and social justice.

Drinan represented the Fourth District of Massachusetts in

the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1981, and was

a member of House committees on the Judiciary, Internal

Security, and Government Operations and of the House Select

Committee on Aging. He chaired the Subcommittee on Criminal

Justice of the House Judiciary Committee, and was a member of

the Executive Committee of the Democratic Study Group of the

Environmental Study Conference and the Steering Committee of

Members of Congress for Peace Through Law. As a congressman,

he traveled in congressional delegations and on human rights

missions around the world, and he has subsequently served as

an election observer in Armenia and Panama.

Drinan has been a professor at Georgetown University Law

Center since 1981. He began teaching at Boston College Law

School, where he became a professor in 1966 and also served

as dean. He has been a visiting professor or guest lecturer

at universities and law schools internationally and across

the U.S.

He is a prolific author, and his eleventh book, ``Can God

and Caesar Coexist Balancing Religious Freedom and

International Law,'' is due to be published in August by Yale

University Press. His previous books all have dealt with

major public policy issues. He is the recipient of 21

honorary doctoral degrees.

In the ABA, Drinan is among a very few people ever to serve

as chair of two distinct substantive legal sections: the

Section of Family Law in 1966-67 and the Section of

Individual Rights and Responsibilities in 1990-91. He also is

a past chair of the association's Standing Committee on

Professionalism and Standing Committee on World Order Under

Law, and a former member of the association's policy-making

House of Delegates.

In other law-related organizations, he has been vice

president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and chair of

its Committee on the Administration of Justice, chair of the

Boston Bar Association Committee on Family Law, chair of the

Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, and a member of the National Executive

Committee of the American Judicature Society and of the

Executive Committee of the Association of American Law

Schools.

Drinan's public service has taken him to leadership roles

in many other organizations. He is a member of the National

Governing Board for Common Cause and the National Council for

the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and the Board of

Directors of People for the American Way, and a past

president of Americans for Democratic Action.

He was a founder and member of the Board of Directors of

the Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control, and a member

of the boards of directors for Bread for the World, the

Council for a Livable World Educational Fund and the NAACP

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and an advisor to

the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission.

He served on the Advisory Committee to the U.S. National

Archives and the Advisory Board of the Union of Councils for

Soviet Jews. He was vice chairman of the National Advisory

Council for the American Civil Liberties Union and is a

member of the Helsinki Watch Committee.

Drinan chaired the International Committee for the Release

of Anatoly Scharansky and Peace PAC, is a fellow of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Bar

Foundation, and was a founder of the National Interreligious

Task Force on Soviet Jewry. He is a past board member of the

National Board of Trustees of the National Conference of

Christians and Jews and a member of the American Law

Institute.

With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar

Association is the largest voluntary professional membership

organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal

profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of

justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in

their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal

education, and works to build public understanding around the

world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic

society.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the rules, it is impossible for those of us on our side to proceed without talking about the degrading spectacle of yesterday. It is particularly ironic that the Republican leadership chose to use extremely undemocratic tactics because there was a fear that democracy might break out in the law. What you had was a bipartisan coalition which formed a majority of the House seeking to change a provision of the PATRIOT Act.

Point of Order

I wish to be heard on the point of order and to contest it vigorously.

I understand the sensitivity of the author of the point of order to discussion of the events over which he presided yesterday, but we are talking about the rules of the House, and we were confronted with what we believed to have been a grievous abuse of the spirit of the rules of the House and we need some reassurance that we will not have a repetition of this as we go forward.

We are, after all, now debating whether or not we will have a previous question motion. If it were to fail, we would then be able to offer some amendments that might prevent that kind of abuse. So I believe a discussion of the abusive pattern of behavior of yesterday is directly relevant to a discussion about whether we ought to go forward with a rule with a previous question or whether or not we ought to be allowed to propose some amendments to this rule that will protect us against the abuse of power of yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker is offering this courtesy to Members in keeping the roll call open, but there will be no need to keep it open for too long because I assume the Speaker is aware that this time you are winning.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear we are talking here about whether or not we should keep open this rule to amendment, and the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts will offer will be to prevent keeping open the roll call for the purpose of manipulation.

Now, I was talking about that before, and I was told I was out of order. It is an interesting sequence. Yesterday, many of us thought we were changing a provision of the PATRIOT Act, which we find to be insufficiently cognizant of democratic values, and the majority then used what many of us believed to be very undemocratic procedures to prevent us from dealing with an undemocratic provision. And today, to complete the trifecta of disrespect for democracy, I was silenced when I tried to talk about, in an open forum, the undemocratic approach to yesterday's democracy.

Now, I know one of the things we are trying to do is to instruct the people of Iraq, to help the people of Iraq understand democracy. We want them to be open. We want them to fully engage debate, not to suppress dissension. And the only thing I can say is this, Mr. Speaker, and I know we are not supposed to address the television audience, so I address this to you.

I hope you will convey to any Iraqis who might be watching the proceedings of this House on television with regard to democracy, if they see what we are doing, please do not try this at home.

Now, let me explain why we are upset about the delay. It is not simply ``the delay.'' Delay is not bad. We will have a chance today to show, in fact, that we are prepared to delay things as well. The question is what happens during the delay.

The purpose of delaying a roll call, the reason the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will offer this amendment, is to preserve the integrity of the House, because here is what happens. We have a roll call and Members vote, and Members will have, in some cases, said to their constituents, I support this position and I will vote that way.

Then the vote tally is taken, and when the vote tally is taken, it turns out that the Republican side has lost. Then the roll call is held open, and that is why we want to prevent the reoccurrence and why we will be offering this amendment if the previous question is defeated.

What happens then is this: The roll call is held open indefinitely so that Members who have told people in their districts they will vote one way can be pressured into voting another way. That is the purpose of holding the roll call open, to orchestrate a scheme by which the voters are misled; to orchestrate a scheme in which people can take a certain position, with the silent footnote that that position that they are taking will hold only so long as it does not prevail. But if it looks as if what they have told their constituents will prevail, they are prepared under the pressure from their leadership to abandon it.

So we are not simply talking about the convenience of the House, we are talking about the integrity of the democratic process, because the sole purpose of that sort of delay, we are not trying to accommodate people just so they can vote, this is a very particular form of delay. It is a ``DeLay-delay.'' And this kind of ``delay squared,'' carried out at the behest of the majority leader, is to allow Members of the Republican leadership to press members of the Republican Party who have voted one way to now abandoned that position lest the way they voted prevail. And the only reason for that, as I said, is to perpetuate misinformation. So let us not have this situation.

By the way, there is one other thing the voters ought to understand, Mr. Speaker. What we used to have in this Congress was individual Members voting, they consulted with their party leadership and then they voted.

What has become clear now, and it was clear in the Medicare prescription drug bill, it is clear with the PATRIOT

Act, it is now clear the Republican leadership is not prepared to allow its Members to vote contrary to the Republican leadership position if it will prevail. Republicans are allowed by their leadership the freedom of their conscience, as long as it is not operative. But if, in fact, there is any danger that what they say they are for will, in fact, reach fruition, the rug is yanked out from under them and they have to change their position.

What it means is people should understand, come election, no matter who they think they are voting for, they are voting for the Republican leadership, because the Republican leadership is prepared to change the spirits of these rules, to hold roll calls open indefinitely, as long as it takes to pressure Republican Members who have voted one way, presumably having told people in their districts they will vote that way, to switch their votes.

The sole purpose of these open roll calls is to allow deception, to undermine democracy.

I hope that we vote down the previous question, that the gentleman's amendment is adopted, and that we restore the principle of intellectual honesty and integrity and democracy to this House.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the people of Massachusetts, and particularly of the town of Sharon in my Congressional district, lost a great priest to illness. Father Robert Bullock exemplified the virtues of the priesthood. He was a wise, loving, kind man of great compassion and unimpeachable integrity. His death at 75 saddened all who knew of him and indeed all who knew of his great work. On Tuesday, June 22, the Boston Herald published a pithy but profound editorial about the death of this wonderful priest and I ask that it be reprinted here.

[From the Boston Herald, June 22, 2004]

A Hero Walked Among Us

Heroes come in many forms, often shaped by their times.

The Rev. Robert W. Bullock, who died this weekend at age

75, had been an everyday kind of hero for a very long time. A

chaplain at Brandeis University and later a parish priest in

Sharon, he forged lasting ties with the Jewish community,

visiting Israel, writing on the Holocaust and speaking out

against anti-Semitism.

But when the scandal of clergy sexual abuse broke, Father

Bullock went from quiet hero to noisy and courageous critic

of the church hierarchy and Bernard Cardinal Law in

particular. He headed the Boston Priests Forum, which called

on Law to step down in December 2002.

His was a courage born of faith, the kind of courage that

will truly be missed around here. But the inspiration that

his life was lives on.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is being carried on C-SPAN, but I think we should broaden our broadcast efforts. When we did the tax bill last week, I thought eBay should have been transmitting it. Today I think it really belongs on the Cartoon Network.

There is much in this resolution I agree with, but what is most important is what is left out. The gentleman from California, a very distinguished and thoughtful legislator, although, unfortunately, in the minority and not in a position to write resolutions, said that it is our democratic responsibility to express legitimate criticisms of the administration. I agree. Sadly, because the majority is in control, there are none of them in this resolution.

This resolution is a cartoon. It describes an Iraq that resembles nothing as much as Brigadoon. I expect maybe it will appear once every hundred years. I agree with many of the aspirations of this resolution. I agree that our troops deserve credit for the terrible situation in which they have been put. But if one read this resolution and had not read the newspapers or watched television about Iraq, one would not know what country was being discussed.

The gentlewoman from California alluded to our congratulating Mr. Bremer for ably advancing the goals of making Iraq safe, secure, stable, sovereign, and democratic. The Iraq that is safe, secure, stable, sovereign, and democratic, are there two countries named Iraq? Is this Iraq anywhere near the Iraq that we have been worried about? I wish Iraq could become that. But to congratulate ourselves as if it already had is simply not accurate.

I am troubled by the procedures we are seeing. The majority obviously feels concerned that the public no longer shares its view so they have decided to legislate opinion. They have a pattern now of coming forward with resolutions which include some things Members agree with, like support for our troops and aspirations, and then they wrap into that a lot of misrepresentative, inaccurate descriptions of reality and then demand that people vote it. We are told if we do not vote for a resolution that talks about Iraq as a safe, secure, stable, sovereign, democratic state, that somehow we are not in favor of the troops. It is a misrepresentation of the situation of Iraq, and a grievous misuse of the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be part of this bipartisan recognition that sometimes you have to expand government. There are times when government is too limited and too small to perform its vital social role, and, apparently, Members on both sides recognize this is a case where we have not given the government enough of a role in providing housing to our veterans.

Since our veterans, of course, fought for this country and served, it is appropriate that we do this. What this bill does is to raise the loan limit to the VA, which means, of course, into this very important government program, the Veterans' Affairs Department being part of the Federal Government and being supported by tax dollars, although this is a program that does not need a lot of subsidy, under this bill, this particular government program will be expanded. It will make more people eligible and it will cover more homes.

In particular, it will bring some States back into the union. In much of Massachusetts, in much of California, in parts of Illinois programs like the Veterans' Affairs housing and the FHA and others might as well be in Ukraine, for all the use the American citizens who live there can get from them because the housing prices have gone too far.

So I am very supportive of this. It is a very important way to show one more example of how we appreciate what our veterans have done. It is a very relevant example of the times when you should expand the reach of government so we can provide services that the private sector alone would not do. Obviously, if the private sector was

entirely able to do this on their own, there would be no need for the VA guarantee.

This is a good example of how public and private sectors cooperate. It is not a case of either/or. It sets a useful precedent, too, for legislation that I hope we will be dealing with soon, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I and others have sponsored to do a similar adjustment for the FHA.

So I thank the members of the committee for this sensible recognition that we need to adjust programs to meet different conditions, and in particular, for understanding that there are times when the responsible thing for us to do, I hope on a unanimous basis, is to expand the role of the Federal Government.